STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ANIL S NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . By consent rule made returnable forthwith. This is an application made by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Special Judge for Greater Bombay in C.R.No.29/96 on 16-3-1996. The allegation of the State is that the respondents are not properly cooperating with the investigation for the offences charges against him. There is a specific allegation in the application in paragraph-3 that certain document which was supposed to be in possession of the respondents viz. copy of the sales-tax returns and excise returns submitted by M/s. Saroj Petrochem Industries Pvt.Ltd. and also copies of Chalan pertaining to imported Neptha supplied to the Oswal Industries for the transport of Neptha from Bombay to Shahjanpur, U.P. were not produced even after request made by the police.

(2.) ON hearing the parties, this Court had passed an order on 2-11-1996 that the three documents mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application as aforesaid had to be produced before the police within two weeks. Till today, though several times the case was called before this Court, those documents have not been produced before the police. The learned counsel Mr.Solkar appearing for the respondents submits that those documents were not in possession of the respondents. He also showed me a letter purported to have been addressed to the police by the respondents stating that the documents directed to be produced were taken in custody by the Income-tax Officer in the raid held on 15-10-1996. Apart from that no details regarding the raid viz. the name and identity of the officer who has conducted the raid and in which office those documents were kept now etc. have been conveniently omitted to state in that letter. In short, even going by the letter, police will not be able to trace out the documents even by approaching the Income-tax Department. In the affidavit in support filed by the petitioner State, it has been stated that unless those documents are not perused, the investigation could not be carried out and completed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent Shri Solkar has raised a preliminary objection contending that though it is an anticipatory bail, it should be treated as an interim bail and, therefore, any revision against any interim order would lie not before this court. Mr.Solkar referred to the cause title of the application and submits that as the application was filed under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. and no revision would lie against an interim order under these provisions. Assuming, not conceding, that no revision will lie against the interim order under the above provisions, this court can certainly exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to uphold the interest of justice. The application filed by the State cannot be rejected on this technical ground, particularly when the respondents have not come to this Court with clean hands. Even after the one and a half years, the learned counsel for the respondents could not say whether the documents demanded by the police has been produced in compliance with the directions of this court or what action they have earnestly taken to cause production of the documents before the police. Apart from all these things, the respondents did not choose to have filed an affidavit before this court within this stipulated time expressing their inability to comply with the directions of this Court.